CHEST Physician

COVID-19, the infection caused by the newly identified coronavirus, is a currently a disease with no pharmaceutical weapons against it. There’s no vaccine to prevent it, and no drugs can treat it.

But researchers are racing to change that. A vaccine could be ready to test as soon as April. More than two dozen studies have already been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, a website that tracks research. These studies aim to test everything from traditional Chinese medicine to vitamin C, stem cells, steroids, and medications that fight other viruses, like the flu and HIV. The hope is that something about how these repurposed remedies work will help patients who are desperately ill with no other prospects.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says this is all part of the playbook for brand-new diseases. “There’s a lot of empiric guessing,” he says. “They’re going to propose a whole lot of drugs that already exist. They’re going to say, here’s the data that shows it blocks the virus” in a test tube. But test tubes aren’t people, and many drugs that seem to work in a lab won’t end up helping patients.

Coronaviruses are especially hard to stop once they invade the body. Unlike many other kinds of viruses, they have a fail-safe against tampering – a “proofreader” that constantly inspects their code, looking for errors, including the potentially life-saving errors that drugs could introduce.

Dr. Fauci said that researchers will be able to make better guesses about how to help people when they can try drugs in animals. “We don’t have an animal model yet of the new coronavirus. When we do get an animal model, that will be a big boon to drugs because then, you can clearly test them in a physiological way, whether they work,” he says.

Looking to drugs for HIV and flu

One of the drugs already under study is the combination of two HIV medications: lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). Kaletra stops viruses by interfering with the enzymes they need to infect cells, called proteases.

One study being done at the Guangzhou Eighth People’s Hospital in China is testing Kaletra against Arbidol, an antiviral drug approved in China and Russia to treat the flu. Two groups of patients will take the medications along with standard care. A third group in the study will receive only standard care, typically supportive therapy with oxygen and IV fluids that are meant to support the body so the immune system can fight off a virus on its own.

An Ebola drug gets a second look

One repurposed drug generating a lot of buzz is an experimental infusion called remdesivir (Xembify). It was originally tested against the Ebola virus. While it didn’t work for that infection, it has been shown to shut down the new coronavirus, at least in test tubes. It’s been given to a small number of COVID-19 patients already, including one in Washington state.

In order to have better evidence of how well it may work in people, two studies in Beijing are comparing remdesivir to a dummy pill to see if the drug can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms recover from their illnesses. Viruses work by infecting cells, taking over their machinery, and getting them to crank out more copies of the virus, which then goes on to infect more cells. Remdesivir is a mimic that fools a virus into replacing one of its four building blocks with a chemical fake. Once in the virus’s blueprints, the imposter acts like a stop sign that keeps the virus from copying itself.

Other kinds of drugs in the same class – called nucleotide analogs – are used to attack cancer and other infectious viruses like hepatitis.

Last week, Chinese scientists published study showing remdesivir was effective against the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Out of seven drugs tested, only remdesivir and an older drug called chloroquine (Aralen), which is used to treat malaria, worked, at least in test tubes. “It functions like a knife that just cuts off the RNA strand,” says Mark Denison, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “They can’t replicate any more. It stops them from doing that.” Dr. Denison is part of a team of researchers in Tennessee and North Carolina that discovered remdesivir could stop coronaviruses, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in test tubes and animals. He has studied coronaviruses in his lab for 30 years. He knew they would pose a threat again. “We’re shocked, but not surprised, that this has happened again,” he says of the China-based outbreak of 2019-nCoV.

After the SARS outbreak, which infected more than 8,000 people in 26 countries during 2002-2003, and MERS, which has infected nearly 2,500 people in 27 countries since 2012, researchers knew they had to start looking for treatments that would work against coronaviruses. Dr. Denison reached out to Gilead Sciences, a company best known for its antiviral medications that treat HIV and hepatitis C, and asked it to send drug candidates for him to test on coronaviruses. “The idea was that we didn’t want a drug that would just work against SARS or MERS,” he says. “We wanted drugs that worked against every coronavirus.”

Many of the agents he tried didn’t work until Dr. Denison and his team knocked out the virus’s pesky proofreader. Remdesivir seems to be able to defeat the proofreader, though Dr. Denison admits that he does not know how the drug gets around a virus’s defenses. He has a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study that. Gilead has been giving remdesivir to “a small number” of coronavirus patients in the United States and Europe on a compassionate basis.

One of those patients was a 35-year-old man in Everett, Wash., who had gotten pneumonia after being infected with the new coronavirus during a trip to see family in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. His doctors started IV remdesivir on the evening of his 7th day in the hospital. On the 8th day, he improved. He was well enough to stop using oxygen. Signs of pneumonia were gone. He got his appetite back. His case was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, igniting a firestorm of interest in the therapy.

Unfortunately, though, even Dr. Denison says a single person’s case isn’t enough proof that the medication can treat the new coronavirus. The patient, who has not been identified, was getting expert care. He may have improved on his own, despite getting the drug. He said the challenge in people will be to find out two things: whether the medication can block the spread of virus in the body and whether it can reverse the disease. “You can remove the source of injury, but you still have the injury,” he said. Other important questions include how soon the drug may need to be given after infection for it work and whether it may cause significant side effects.

A promising pill

Another drug, a nucleoside analog, that appears to be able to defeat the coronavirus proofreader, EIDD-2801, was developed by Emory University in Atlanta. It was originally intended to treat the flu but has shown some effectiveness against coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.

The FDA recently reached out to Emory asking if it had any drug candidates that might work against the new coronavirus. “It’s a good shot on goal here,” says George Painter, PhD, CEO of Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory. EIDD-2801 can be taken as a pill, which makes it easier to use outside of a hospital setting.

“The capsules for the trial are being made at the end of this month. So we’re close,” Painter says. “We’re right on the edge.”

While these early tests are just getting started, and it will be months until researchers have results, the World Health Organization has sounded a note of caution.

In new guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19, the WHO reminded doctors and patients that there’s not enough evidence to recommend any specific treatment for infected patients.

Right now, the guidelines recommend that doctors offer supportive care to help the body fight off an infection on its own.

The organization says unlicensed treatments should be given only in the context of clinical trials that have been ethically reviewed or with strict clinical monitoring in emergencies.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19, the infection caused by the newly identified coronavirus, is a currently a disease with no pharmaceutical weapons against it. There’s no vaccine to prevent it, and no drugs can treat it.

But researchers are racing to change that. A vaccine could be ready to test as soon as April. More than two dozen studies have already been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, a website that tracks research. These studies aim to test everything from traditional Chinese medicine to vitamin C, stem cells, steroids, and medications that fight other viruses, like the flu and HIV. The hope is that something about how these repurposed remedies work will help patients who are desperately ill with no other prospects.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says this is all part of the playbook for brand-new diseases. “There’s a lot of empiric guessing,” he says. “They’re going to propose a whole lot of drugs that already exist. They’re going to say, here’s the data that shows it blocks the virus” in a test tube. But test tubes aren’t people, and many drugs that seem to work in a lab won’t end up helping patients.

Coronaviruses are especially hard to stop once they invade the body. Unlike many other kinds of viruses, they have a fail-safe against tampering – a “proofreader” that constantly inspects their code, looking for errors, including the potentially life-saving errors that drugs could introduce.

Dr. Fauci said that researchers will be able to make better guesses about how to help people when they can try drugs in animals. “We don’t have an animal model yet of the new coronavirus. When we do get an animal model, that will be a big boon to drugs because then, you can clearly test them in a physiological way, whether they work,” he says.

Looking to drugs for HIV and flu

One of the drugs already under study is the combination of two HIV medications: lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). Kaletra stops viruses by interfering with the enzymes they need to infect cells, called proteases.

One study being done at the Guangzhou Eighth People’s Hospital in China is testing Kaletra against Arbidol, an antiviral drug approved in China and Russia to treat the flu. Two groups of patients will take the medications along with standard care. A third group in the study will receive only standard care, typically supportive therapy with oxygen and IV fluids that are meant to support the body so the immune system can fight off a virus on its own.

An Ebola drug gets a second look

One repurposed drug generating a lot of buzz is an experimental infusion called remdesivir (Xembify). It was originally tested against the Ebola virus. While it didn’t work for that infection, it has been shown to shut down the new coronavirus, at least in test tubes. It’s been given to a small number of COVID-19 patients already, including one in Washington state.

In order to have better evidence of how well it may work in people, two studies in Beijing are comparing remdesivir to a dummy pill to see if the drug can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms recover from their illnesses. Viruses work by infecting cells, taking over their machinery, and getting them to crank out more copies of the virus, which then goes on to infect more cells. Remdesivir is a mimic that fools a virus into replacing one of its four building blocks with a chemical fake. Once in the virus’s blueprints, the imposter acts like a stop sign that keeps the virus from copying itself.

Other kinds of drugs in the same class – called nucleotide analogs – are used to attack cancer and other infectious viruses like hepatitis.

Last week, Chinese scientists published study showing remdesivir was effective against the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Out of seven drugs tested, only remdesivir and an older drug called chloroquine (Aralen), which is used to treat malaria, worked, at least in test tubes. “It functions like a knife that just cuts off the RNA strand,” says Mark Denison, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “They can’t replicate any more. It stops them from doing that.” Dr. Denison is part of a team of researchers in Tennessee and North Carolina that discovered remdesivir could stop coronaviruses, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in test tubes and animals. He has studied coronaviruses in his lab for 30 years. He knew they would pose a threat again. “We’re shocked, but not surprised, that this has happened again,” he says of the China-based outbreak of 2019-nCoV.

After the SARS outbreak, which infected more than 8,000 people in 26 countries during 2002-2003, and MERS, which has infected nearly 2,500 people in 27 countries since 2012, researchers knew they had to start looking for treatments that would work against coronaviruses. Dr. Denison reached out to Gilead Sciences, a company best known for its antiviral medications that treat HIV and hepatitis C, and asked it to send drug candidates for him to test on coronaviruses. “The idea was that we didn’t want a drug that would just work against SARS or MERS,” he says. “We wanted drugs that worked against every coronavirus.”

Many of the agents he tried didn’t work until Dr. Denison and his team knocked out the virus’s pesky proofreader. Remdesivir seems to be able to defeat the proofreader, though Dr. Denison admits that he does not know how the drug gets around a virus’s defenses. He has a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study that. Gilead has been giving remdesivir to “a small number” of coronavirus patients in the United States and Europe on a compassionate basis.

One of those patients was a 35-year-old man in Everett, Wash., who had gotten pneumonia after being infected with the new coronavirus during a trip to see family in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. His doctors started IV remdesivir on the evening of his 7th day in the hospital. On the 8th day, he improved. He was well enough to stop using oxygen. Signs of pneumonia were gone. He got his appetite back. His case was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, igniting a firestorm of interest in the therapy.

Unfortunately, though, even Dr. Denison says a single person’s case isn’t enough proof that the medication can treat the new coronavirus. The patient, who has not been identified, was getting expert care. He may have improved on his own, despite getting the drug. He said the challenge in people will be to find out two things: whether the medication can block the spread of virus in the body and whether it can reverse the disease. “You can remove the source of injury, but you still have the injury,” he said. Other important questions include how soon the drug may need to be given after infection for it work and whether it may cause significant side effects.

A promising pill

Another drug, a nucleoside analog, that appears to be able to defeat the coronavirus proofreader, EIDD-2801, was developed by Emory University in Atlanta. It was originally intended to treat the flu but has shown some effectiveness against coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.

The FDA recently reached out to Emory asking if it had any drug candidates that might work against the new coronavirus. “It’s a good shot on goal here,” says George Painter, PhD, CEO of Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory. EIDD-2801 can be taken as a pill, which makes it easier to use outside of a hospital setting.

“The capsules for the trial are being made at the end of this month. So we’re close,” Painter says. “We’re right on the edge.”

While these early tests are just getting started, and it will be months until researchers have results, the World Health Organization has sounded a note of caution.

In new guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19, the WHO reminded doctors and patients that there’s not enough evidence to recommend any specific treatment for infected patients.

Right now, the guidelines recommend that doctors offer supportive care to help the body fight off an infection on its own.

The organization says unlicensed treatments should be given only in the context of clinical trials that have been ethically reviewed or with strict clinical monitoring in emergencies.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19, the infection caused by the newly identified coronavirus, is a currently a disease with no pharmaceutical weapons against it. There’s no vaccine to prevent it, and no drugs can treat it.

But researchers are racing to change that. A vaccine could be ready to test as soon as April. More than two dozen studies have already been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, a website that tracks research. These studies aim to test everything from traditional Chinese medicine to vitamin C, stem cells, steroids, and medications that fight other viruses, like the flu and HIV. The hope is that something about how these repurposed remedies work will help patients who are desperately ill with no other prospects.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says this is all part of the playbook for brand-new diseases. “There’s a lot of empiric guessing,” he says. “They’re going to propose a whole lot of drugs that already exist. They’re going to say, here’s the data that shows it blocks the virus” in a test tube. But test tubes aren’t people, and many drugs that seem to work in a lab won’t end up helping patients.

Coronaviruses are especially hard to stop once they invade the body. Unlike many other kinds of viruses, they have a fail-safe against tampering – a “proofreader” that constantly inspects their code, looking for errors, including the potentially life-saving errors that drugs could introduce.

Dr. Fauci said that researchers will be able to make better guesses about how to help people when they can try drugs in animals. “We don’t have an animal model yet of the new coronavirus. When we do get an animal model, that will be a big boon to drugs because then, you can clearly test them in a physiological way, whether they work,” he says.

Looking to drugs for HIV and flu

One of the drugs already under study is the combination of two HIV medications: lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). Kaletra stops viruses by interfering with the enzymes they need to infect cells, called proteases.

One study being done at the Guangzhou Eighth People’s Hospital in China is testing Kaletra against Arbidol, an antiviral drug approved in China and Russia to treat the flu. Two groups of patients will take the medications along with standard care. A third group in the study will receive only standard care, typically supportive therapy with oxygen and IV fluids that are meant to support the body so the immune system can fight off a virus on its own.

An Ebola drug gets a second look

One repurposed drug generating a lot of buzz is an experimental infusion called remdesivir (Xembify). It was originally tested against the Ebola virus. While it didn’t work for that infection, it has been shown to shut down the new coronavirus, at least in test tubes. It’s been given to a small number of COVID-19 patients already, including one in Washington state.

In order to have better evidence of how well it may work in people, two studies in Beijing are comparing remdesivir to a dummy pill to see if the drug can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms recover from their illnesses. Viruses work by infecting cells, taking over their machinery, and getting them to crank out more copies of the virus, which then goes on to infect more cells. Remdesivir is a mimic that fools a virus into replacing one of its four building blocks with a chemical fake. Once in the virus’s blueprints, the imposter acts like a stop sign that keeps the virus from copying itself.

Other kinds of drugs in the same class – called nucleotide analogs – are used to attack cancer and other infectious viruses like hepatitis.

Last week, Chinese scientists published study showing remdesivir was effective against the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Out of seven drugs tested, only remdesivir and an older drug called chloroquine (Aralen), which is used to treat malaria, worked, at least in test tubes. “It functions like a knife that just cuts off the RNA strand,” says Mark Denison, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “They can’t replicate any more. It stops them from doing that.” Dr. Denison is part of a team of researchers in Tennessee and North Carolina that discovered remdesivir could stop coronaviruses, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in test tubes and animals. He has studied coronaviruses in his lab for 30 years. He knew they would pose a threat again. “We’re shocked, but not surprised, that this has happened again,” he says of the China-based outbreak of 2019-nCoV.

After the SARS outbreak, which infected more than 8,000 people in 26 countries during 2002-2003, and MERS, which has infected nearly 2,500 people in 27 countries since 2012, researchers knew they had to start looking for treatments that would work against coronaviruses. Dr. Denison reached out to Gilead Sciences, a company best known for its antiviral medications that treat HIV and hepatitis C, and asked it to send drug candidates for him to test on coronaviruses. “The idea was that we didn’t want a drug that would just work against SARS or MERS,” he says. “We wanted drugs that worked against every coronavirus.”

Many of the agents he tried didn’t work until Dr. Denison and his team knocked out the virus’s pesky proofreader. Remdesivir seems to be able to defeat the proofreader, though Dr. Denison admits that he does not know how the drug gets around a virus’s defenses. He has a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study that. Gilead has been giving remdesivir to “a small number” of coronavirus patients in the United States and Europe on a compassionate basis.

One of those patients was a 35-year-old man in Everett, Wash., who had gotten pneumonia after being infected with the new coronavirus during a trip to see family in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. His doctors started IV remdesivir on the evening of his 7th day in the hospital. On the 8th day, he improved. He was well enough to stop using oxygen. Signs of pneumonia were gone. He got his appetite back. His case was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, igniting a firestorm of interest in the therapy.

Unfortunately, though, even Dr. Denison says a single person’s case isn’t enough proof that the medication can treat the new coronavirus. The patient, who has not been identified, was getting expert care. He may have improved on his own, despite getting the drug. He said the challenge in people will be to find out two things: whether the medication can block the spread of virus in the body and whether it can reverse the disease. “You can remove the source of injury, but you still have the injury,” he said. Other important questions include how soon the drug may need to be given after infection for it work and whether it may cause significant side effects.

A promising pill

Another drug, a nucleoside analog, that appears to be able to defeat the coronavirus proofreader, EIDD-2801, was developed by Emory University in Atlanta. It was originally intended to treat the flu but has shown some effectiveness against coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.

The FDA recently reached out to Emory asking if it had any drug candidates that might work against the new coronavirus. “It’s a good shot on goal here,” says George Painter, PhD, CEO of Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory. EIDD-2801 can be taken as a pill, which makes it easier to use outside of a hospital setting.

“The capsules for the trial are being made at the end of this month. So we’re close,” Painter says. “We’re right on the edge.”

While these early tests are just getting started, and it will be months until researchers have results, the World Health Organization has sounded a note of caution.

In new guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19, the WHO reminded doctors and patients that there’s not enough evidence to recommend any specific treatment for infected patients.

Right now, the guidelines recommend that doctors offer supportive care to help the body fight off an infection on its own.

The organization says unlicensed treatments should be given only in the context of clinical trials that have been ethically reviewed or with strict clinical monitoring in emergencies.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was associated with a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.

However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.

Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).

In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.

The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.

The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.

The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.

The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.

“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.

Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”

Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was associated with a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.

However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.

Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).

In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.

The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.

The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.

The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.

The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.

“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.

Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”

Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was associated with a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.

However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.

Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).

In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.

The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.

The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.

The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.

The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.

“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.

Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”

Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – The proportion of children and adolescents admitted to critical care for serious poisonings has increased in recent years, according to authors of a study of more than 750,000 reported opioid exposures.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

Critical care units were involved in 10% of pediatric opioid poisoning cases registered in 2015-2018, up from 7% in 2005-2009, reported Megan E. Land, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and coinvestigators.

Attempted suicide has represented an increasingly large proportion of pediatric opioid poisonings from 2005 to 2018, according to the researchers, based on retrospective analysis of cases reported to U.S. poison centers.

Mortality related to these pediatric poisonings increased over time, and among children and adolescents admitted to a pediatric ICU, CPR and naloxone use also increased over time, Dr. Land and associates noted.

These serious consequences of opioid ingestion by children and adolescents emphasize the need for strategies to address suicidality and reduce access to opioids, said Dr. Land, who presented the findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

“I think that this really requires a two-pronged approach,” she explained. “One is that we need to increase mental health resources for kids to address adolescent suicidality, and secondly, we need to decrease access to opioids in the hands of pediatric patients by decreasing prescribing and then also getting those that are unused out of the homes.”

Jeffrey Zimmerman, MD, past president of SCCM, said these findings on pediatric opioid poisonings represent the “iceberg tip” of a much larger societal issue that has impacts well beyond critical care.

“I think acutely, we’re well equipped to deal with the situation in terms of interventions,” Dr. Zimmerman said in an interview. “The bigger issue is dealing with what happens afterward, when the patient leaves the ICU in the hospital.”

When the issue is chronic opioid use among adolescents or children, critical care specialists can help by initiating opioid tapering in the hospital setting, rather than allowing the complete weaning process to play out at home, he said.

All clinicians can help prevent future injury by asking questions of the child and family to ensure that any opiates and other prescription medications at home are locked up, he added.

“These aren’t very glamorous things, but they’re common sense, and there’s more need for this common sense now than there ever has been,” Dr. Zimmerman concluded.

The study by Dr. Land and colleagues included data on primary opioid ingestions registered at 55 poison control centers in the United States. They assessed trends over three time periods: 2005-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2018.

They found that children under 19 years of age accounted for 28% of the 753,592 opioid poisonings reported over that time period.

The overall number of reported opioid poisonings among children declined somewhat since about 2010. However, the proportion admitted to a critical care unit increased from 7% in the 2005-2009 period to 10% in the 2015-2018 period, said Dr. Land, who added that the probability of a moderate or major effect increased by 0.55% and 0.11% per year, respectively, over the 14 years studied.

Mortality – 0.21% overall – increased from 0.18% in the earliest era to 0.28% in the most recent era, according to the investigators.

Suicidal intent increased from 14% in the earliest era to 21% in the most recent era, and was linked to near tenfold odds of undergoing a pediatric ICU procedure, Dr. Land and colleagues reported.

Among those children admitted to a pediatric ICU, use of CPR increased from 1% to 3% in the earliest and latest time periods, respectively; likewise, naloxone administration increased from 42% to 51% over those two time periods. By contrast, there was no change in use of mechanical ventilation (12%) or vasopressors (3%) over time, they added.

The opioids most commonly linked to pediatric ICU procedures were fentanyl (odds ratio, 12), heroin (OR, 11), and methadone (OR, 15).

Some funding for the study came from the Georgia Poison Center. Dr. Land had no disclosures relevant to the research.

SOURCE: Land M et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000618708.38414.ea.

ORLANDO – The proportion of children and adolescents admitted to critical care for serious poisonings has increased in recent years, according to authors of a study of more than 750,000 reported opioid exposures.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

Critical care units were involved in 10% of pediatric opioid poisoning cases registered in 2015-2018, up from 7% in 2005-2009, reported Megan E. Land, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and coinvestigators.

Attempted suicide has represented an increasingly large proportion of pediatric opioid poisonings from 2005 to 2018, according to the researchers, based on retrospective analysis of cases reported to U.S. poison centers.

Mortality related to these pediatric poisonings increased over time, and among children and adolescents admitted to a pediatric ICU, CPR and naloxone use also increased over time, Dr. Land and associates noted.

These serious consequences of opioid ingestion by children and adolescents emphasize the need for strategies to address suicidality and reduce access to opioids, said Dr. Land, who presented the findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

“I think that this really requires a two-pronged approach,” she explained. “One is that we need to increase mental health resources for kids to address adolescent suicidality, and secondly, we need to decrease access to opioids in the hands of pediatric patients by decreasing prescribing and then also getting those that are unused out of the homes.”

Jeffrey Zimmerman, MD, past president of SCCM, said these findings on pediatric opioid poisonings represent the “iceberg tip” of a much larger societal issue that has impacts well beyond critical care.

“I think acutely, we’re well equipped to deal with the situation in terms of interventions,” Dr. Zimmerman said in an interview. “The bigger issue is dealing with what happens afterward, when the patient leaves the ICU in the hospital.”

When the issue is chronic opioid use among adolescents or children, critical care specialists can help by initiating opioid tapering in the hospital setting, rather than allowing the complete weaning process to play out at home, he said.

All clinicians can help prevent future injury by asking questions of the child and family to ensure that any opiates and other prescription medications at home are locked up, he added.

“These aren’t very glamorous things, but they’re common sense, and there’s more need for this common sense now than there ever has been,” Dr. Zimmerman concluded.

The study by Dr. Land and colleagues included data on primary opioid ingestions registered at 55 poison control centers in the United States. They assessed trends over three time periods: 2005-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2018.

They found that children under 19 years of age accounted for 28% of the 753,592 opioid poisonings reported over that time period.

The overall number of reported opioid poisonings among children declined somewhat since about 2010. However, the proportion admitted to a critical care unit increased from 7% in the 2005-2009 period to 10% in the 2015-2018 period, said Dr. Land, who added that the probability of a moderate or major effect increased by 0.55% and 0.11% per year, respectively, over the 14 years studied.

Mortality – 0.21% overall – increased from 0.18% in the earliest era to 0.28% in the most recent era, according to the investigators.

Suicidal intent increased from 14% in the earliest era to 21% in the most recent era, and was linked to near tenfold odds of undergoing a pediatric ICU procedure, Dr. Land and colleagues reported.

Among those children admitted to a pediatric ICU, use of CPR increased from 1% to 3% in the earliest and latest time periods, respectively; likewise, naloxone administration increased from 42% to 51% over those two time periods. By contrast, there was no change in use of mechanical ventilation (12%) or vasopressors (3%) over time, they added.

The opioids most commonly linked to pediatric ICU procedures were fentanyl (odds ratio, 12), heroin (OR, 11), and methadone (OR, 15).

Some funding for the study came from the Georgia Poison Center. Dr. Land had no disclosures relevant to the research.

SOURCE: Land M et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000618708.38414.ea.

ORLANDO – The proportion of children and adolescents admitted to critical care for serious poisonings has increased in recent years, according to authors of a study of more than 750,000 reported opioid exposures.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

Critical care units were involved in 10% of pediatric opioid poisoning cases registered in 2015-2018, up from 7% in 2005-2009, reported Megan E. Land, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and coinvestigators.

Attempted suicide has represented an increasingly large proportion of pediatric opioid poisonings from 2005 to 2018, according to the researchers, based on retrospective analysis of cases reported to U.S. poison centers.

Mortality related to these pediatric poisonings increased over time, and among children and adolescents admitted to a pediatric ICU, CPR and naloxone use also increased over time, Dr. Land and associates noted.

These serious consequences of opioid ingestion by children and adolescents emphasize the need for strategies to address suicidality and reduce access to opioids, said Dr. Land, who presented the findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

“I think that this really requires a two-pronged approach,” she explained. “One is that we need to increase mental health resources for kids to address adolescent suicidality, and secondly, we need to decrease access to opioids in the hands of pediatric patients by decreasing prescribing and then also getting those that are unused out of the homes.”

Jeffrey Zimmerman, MD, past president of SCCM, said these findings on pediatric opioid poisonings represent the “iceberg tip” of a much larger societal issue that has impacts well beyond critical care.

“I think acutely, we’re well equipped to deal with the situation in terms of interventions,” Dr. Zimmerman said in an interview. “The bigger issue is dealing with what happens afterward, when the patient leaves the ICU in the hospital.”

When the issue is chronic opioid use among adolescents or children, critical care specialists can help by initiating opioid tapering in the hospital setting, rather than allowing the complete weaning process to play out at home, he said.

All clinicians can help prevent future injury by asking questions of the child and family to ensure that any opiates and other prescription medications at home are locked up, he added.

“These aren’t very glamorous things, but they’re common sense, and there’s more need for this common sense now than there ever has been,” Dr. Zimmerman concluded.

The study by Dr. Land and colleagues included data on primary opioid ingestions registered at 55 poison control centers in the United States. They assessed trends over three time periods: 2005-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2018.

They found that children under 19 years of age accounted for 28% of the 753,592 opioid poisonings reported over that time period.

The overall number of reported opioid poisonings among children declined somewhat since about 2010. However, the proportion admitted to a critical care unit increased from 7% in the 2005-2009 period to 10% in the 2015-2018 period, said Dr. Land, who added that the probability of a moderate or major effect increased by 0.55% and 0.11% per year, respectively, over the 14 years studied.

Mortality – 0.21% overall – increased from 0.18% in the earliest era to 0.28% in the most recent era, according to the investigators.

Suicidal intent increased from 14% in the earliest era to 21% in the most recent era, and was linked to near tenfold odds of undergoing a pediatric ICU procedure, Dr. Land and colleagues reported.

Among those children admitted to a pediatric ICU, use of CPR increased from 1% to 3% in the earliest and latest time periods, respectively; likewise, naloxone administration increased from 42% to 51% over those two time periods. By contrast, there was no change in use of mechanical ventilation (12%) or vasopressors (3%) over time, they added.

The opioids most commonly linked to pediatric ICU procedures were fentanyl (odds ratio, 12), heroin (OR, 11), and methadone (OR, 15).

Some funding for the study came from the Georgia Poison Center. Dr. Land had no disclosures relevant to the research.

SOURCE: Land M et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000618708.38414.ea.

Clinical significance

Continuous positive airway pressure remains the gold standard and first-line treatment for moderate to severe OSA. When CPAP and other medical therapies fail or are poorly adopted, surgical solutions - either standalone or in unison - can be directed to target precision therapy.

The newest of these techniques is neuromodulation of the lingual musculature, particularly by way of selective stimulation of the hypoglossal nerve, which first demonstrated success in human clinical trials in 1996.¹ Upper airway stimulation (UAS) was formally FDA-approved in 2014 (Inspire Medical Systems, Inc). UAS is designed to eliminate clinically significant OSA through stimulation of the anteriorly directed branches of the hypoglossal nerve, increasing the posterior airway space in a multilevel fashion.² Since this time, over 7,500 patients have been treated with Inspire in nine countries (United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, and Finland). Prospective, international multicenter trials have demonstrated 68% to 96% clinical efficacy in well selected individuals. This is defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in the apnea hypopnea index (AHI) to an overall AHI of ≤ 20/hour.^3,4 Additionally, post-UAS analysis demonstrates subjective reduction in daytime sleepiness as reported by Epworth sleepiness scores, with improvements in sleep-related quality of life. Further, UAS reduces socially disruptive snoring with 85% of bedpartners reporting soft to no snoring at 48-month follow-up.⁵ The procedure has also demonstrated long-term cost benefit in the US health-care system.⁶
 

Background and pathophysiology

Oliven and colleagues⁷ first observed the critical finding that selective intra-muscular stimulation of the genioglossus muscle lowered airway critical closing pressure (PCrit), thereby stabilizing the pharyngeal airway. Conversely, activation of the “retrusor” musculature, namely the hyoglossus and styloglossus muscles, increased Pcrit, increasing collapsibility of the pharyngeal airway.

Therapeutic implantation requires three incisions directed to the neck, chest, and right rib space (between the 4th to 6th intercostal spaces), with an operative time of 90 minutes or less in experienced hands. The majority of patients are discharged on the day of the procedure. Morbidity remains low with minimal pain reported during recovery. The most common complication is that of temporary tongue weakness, which typically resolves within 2 to 3 weeks. While very infrequent, patients should be counseled on the risk of postoperative hematoma, which can precipitate infection and subsequent explant of the device. Average recovery time spans between 3 and 7 days with activation of the device 4 weeks after surgical implantation to allow for appropriate tissue healing and reduce the risk of dislodgement of the implanted components. In contrast to other surgical treatment options, UAS is also reversible with no underlying alteration to existing pharyngeal anatomy apart from external incisions created during the procedure.
 

Stimulation to titration

As the need for a multidisciplinary approach to salvage of patients failing first-line therapy for OSA continues to grow, UAS with its multilevel impact continues to be of key interest. In similar fashion to established medical therapies such as PAP and oral appliance therapy (OAT), close observation between sleep medicine specialists and the implanting surgeon during the adaptation period with attention paid to titration parameters such as stimulation duration, pulse width, amplitude, and polarity, allow optimization of response outcome.

The stimulation electrode, which is designed in the form of a cuff to envelope the anterior (protrusor) branches of the hypoglossal nerve receives electrical stimulation from the implanted pulse generator, implanted above the pectoralis muscle of the chest wall. This design allows for collaborative awake and overnight titration of the device as directed by a sleep medicine physician. Attention is paid not only to the voltage “strength” administered with each pulse but also the degree of synchronization between respiration and stimulation, as well as pattern of pulse administration. Our experience remains that true success and adaptation to therapy requires not just meticulous surgical technique but a diligent approach to postoperative therapeutic titration to achieve a comfortable, yet effective, voltage for maintaining airway patency. Thus, akin to initiation of CPAP, UAS requires regular follow-up and device fine-tuning with patient comfort taken into consideration to achieve optimal results, and patient expectation should be aligned with this process.
 

Current indications

Success in UAS relies heavily on appropriate presurgical evaluation and clinical phenotyping. The following surgical indications have been demonstrated in the Stimulation Therapy for Apnea Reduction (STAR) trial and subsequent 3-year clinical follow-up: AHI between 15 and 80 events/hour (with ≤ 25% central apneas) and a BMI ≤ 32.⁸

As OSA often results from multi-level airway collapse, UAS targets an increase not only in the diameter of the retropalatal/oropharyngeal airway space but also the antero-posterior hypopharyngeal airway. Original criteria for implantation excluded patients with a pattern of complete circumferential collapse (CCC) noted on dynamic airway evaluation during pre-implant drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE). DISE aims to precisely target dynamic airway collapse patterns during simulated (propofol or midazolom induced) sleep.
 

Future directions

The effects of UAS are dependent on upper-airway cross-sectional area, particularly diameter. In patients who demonstrate CCC, the anteroposterior direction of activation derived from the UAS stimulus is unable to overcome CCC. In a recent prospective study, our group demonstrated that CCC can be converted to an airway collapse pattern compatible with UAS implantation, using a modified palatopharyngoplasty prior to UAS implantation. By stabilizing the lateral walls of the oropharyngeal airway with pre-implant palatal surgery, UAS is able to successfully direct widening of the airway cross-sectional area in an antero-posterior fashion. This exciting finding potentially allows for expansion of current indications, thus opening treatment to a wider patient population.⁹ Still, UAS remains highly studied in a relatively uniform patient population with data in more diverse subsets requiring further directed attention to expand and better define optimal patient populations for treatment.

From the perspective of improving patient adaptation and tolerance in UAS, a well-established concept in the CPAP literature can be applied, as explained by the Starling resistor model. The starling resistor is comprised of two rigid tubes connected by a collapsible segment in between. In parallel, the pharynx is a collapsible muscular tube connected on either end by the nose/nasal cavity and the trachea – both of which are bony/cartilaginous, noncollapsible structures. As has been shown in the use of CPAP, the same pressure required to maintain stability of the collapsible muscular pharynx via nasal breathing may lead to pharyngeal collapse when applied orally.¹⁰ This concept has also been directed towards UAS with our clinical experience demonstrating that oro or oronasal breathers tend to require a higher amplitude to maintain airway patency versus nasal breathers. This is an important area for future-directed study as medically/surgically improving nasal breathing in UAS subjects may subsequently lower amplitude requirements and improve patient tolerance.

Future direction to allow for improvement in the technology for application in a broader populational segment, external or alternative device powering mechanisms, along with MRI Compatibility and reducing the number of required external incisions will continue to broaden the patient selection criteria. As we move from a “stimulation” to a precision-tailored “stimulation and titration” approach, the mid to long term data supporting UAS remains very promising with 5-year follow up demonstrating sustained polysomnographic and subjective reported outcomes in well selected patients.
 

Dr. Awad is Assistant Professor – Department of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, and Chief – Division of Sleep Surgery; Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Capasso is Associate Professor – Department of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, and Chief – Division of Sleep Surgery; Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, California.

References

1. Schwartz AR et al. Electrical stimulation of the lingual musculature in obstructive sleep apnea. J Appl Physiol. 1996;81(2):643-52. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1996.81.2.643.

2. Ong AA et al. Efficacy of upper airway stimulation on collapse patterns observed during drug-induced sedation endoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154(5):970-7. doi: 10.1177/0194599816636835.

3. Woodson BT et al. Three-year outcomes of cranial nerve stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea: The STAR trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154(1):181-8. doi: 10.1177/0194599815616618.

4. Heiser C et al. Outcomes of upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea in a multicenter german postmarket study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(2):378-84. doi: 10.1177/0194599816683378.

5. Gillespie MB et al. Upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea: Patient-reported outcomes after 48 months of follow-up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(4):765-71. doi: 10.1177/0194599817691491.

6. Pietzsch JB et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of upper airway stimulation for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: A model-based projection based on the star trial. Sleep. 2015;38(5):735-44. doi: 10.5665/sleep.4666.

7. Oliven A et al. Improved upper airway patency elicited by electrical stimulation of the hypoglossus nerves. Respiration. 1996;63(4):213-16. doi: 10.1159/000196547.

8. Strollo PJ et al. Upper-airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(2):139-49. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1308659.

9. Liu YC et al. Palatopharyngoplasty resolves concentric collapse in patients ineligible for upper airway stimulation. Laryngoscope. Forthcoming.

10. De Andrade RGS et al. Impact of the type of mask on the effectiveness of and adherence to continuous positive airway pressure treatment for obstructive sleep apnea. J Bras Pneumol. 2014;40(6):658-68. doi: 10.1590/S1806-37132014000600010

Clinical significance

Continuous positive airway pressure remains the gold standard and first-line treatment for moderate to severe OSA. When CPAP and other medical therapies fail or are poorly adopted, surgical solutions - either standalone or in unison - can be directed to target precision therapy.

The newest of these techniques is neuromodulation of the lingual musculature, particularly by way of selective stimulation of the hypoglossal nerve, which first demonstrated success in human clinical trials in 1996.¹ Upper airway stimulation (UAS) was formally FDA-approved in 2014 (Inspire Medical Systems, Inc). UAS is designed to eliminate clinically significant OSA through stimulation of the anteriorly directed branches of the hypoglossal nerve, increasing the posterior airway space in a multilevel fashion.² Since this time, over 7,500 patients have been treated with Inspire in nine countries (United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, and Finland). Prospective, international multicenter trials have demonstrated 68% to 96% clinical efficacy in well selected individuals. This is defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in the apnea hypopnea index (AHI) to an overall AHI of ≤ 20/hour.^3,4 Additionally, post-UAS analysis demonstrates subjective reduction in daytime sleepiness as reported by Epworth sleepiness scores, with improvements in sleep-related quality of life. Further, UAS reduces socially disruptive snoring with 85% of bedpartners reporting soft to no snoring at 48-month follow-up.⁵ The procedure has also demonstrated long-term cost benefit in the US health-care system.⁶
 

Background and pathophysiology

Oliven and colleagues⁷ first observed the critical finding that selective intra-muscular stimulation of the genioglossus muscle lowered airway critical closing pressure (PCrit), thereby stabilizing the pharyngeal airway. Conversely, activation of the “retrusor” musculature, namely the hyoglossus and styloglossus muscles, increased Pcrit, increasing collapsibility of the pharyngeal airway.

Therapeutic implantation requires three incisions directed to the neck, chest, and right rib space (between the 4th to 6th intercostal spaces), with an operative time of 90 minutes or less in experienced hands. The majority of patients are discharged on the day of the procedure. Morbidity remains low with minimal pain reported during recovery. The most common complication is that of temporary tongue weakness, which typically resolves within 2 to 3 weeks. While very infrequent, patients should be counseled on the risk of postoperative hematoma, which can precipitate infection and subsequent explant of the device. Average recovery time spans between 3 and 7 days with activation of the device 4 weeks after surgical implantation to allow for appropriate tissue healing and reduce the risk of dislodgement of the implanted components. In contrast to other surgical treatment options, UAS is also reversible with no underlying alteration to existing pharyngeal anatomy apart from external incisions created during the procedure.
 

Stimulation to titration

As the need for a multidisciplinary approach to salvage of patients failing first-line therapy for OSA continues to grow, UAS with its multilevel impact continues to be of key interest. In similar fashion to established medical therapies such as PAP and oral appliance therapy (OAT), close observation between sleep medicine specialists and the implanting surgeon during the adaptation period with attention paid to titration parameters such as stimulation duration, pulse width, amplitude, and polarity, allow optimization of response outcome.

The stimulation electrode, which is designed in the form of a cuff to envelope the anterior (protrusor) branches of the hypoglossal nerve receives electrical stimulation from the implanted pulse generator, implanted above the pectoralis muscle of the chest wall. This design allows for collaborative awake and overnight titration of the device as directed by a sleep medicine physician. Attention is paid not only to the voltage “strength” administered with each pulse but also the degree of synchronization between respiration and stimulation, as well as pattern of pulse administration. Our experience remains that true success and adaptation to therapy requires not just meticulous surgical technique but a diligent approach to postoperative therapeutic titration to achieve a comfortable, yet effective, voltage for maintaining airway patency. Thus, akin to initiation of CPAP, UAS requires regular follow-up and device fine-tuning with patient comfort taken into consideration to achieve optimal results, and patient expectation should be aligned with this process.
 

Current indications

Success in UAS relies heavily on appropriate presurgical evaluation and clinical phenotyping. The following surgical indications have been demonstrated in the Stimulation Therapy for Apnea Reduction (STAR) trial and subsequent 3-year clinical follow-up: AHI between 15 and 80 events/hour (with ≤ 25% central apneas) and a BMI ≤ 32.⁸

As OSA often results from multi-level airway collapse, UAS targets an increase not only in the diameter of the retropalatal/oropharyngeal airway space but also the antero-posterior hypopharyngeal airway. Original criteria for implantation excluded patients with a pattern of complete circumferential collapse (CCC) noted on dynamic airway evaluation during pre-implant drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE). DISE aims to precisely target dynamic airway collapse patterns during simulated (propofol or midazolom induced) sleep.
 

Future directions

The effects of UAS are dependent on upper-airway cross-sectional area, particularly diameter. In patients who demonstrate CCC, the anteroposterior direction of activation derived from the UAS stimulus is unable to overcome CCC. In a recent prospective study, our group demonstrated that CCC can be converted to an airway collapse pattern compatible with UAS implantation, using a modified palatopharyngoplasty prior to UAS implantation. By stabilizing the lateral walls of the oropharyngeal airway with pre-implant palatal surgery, UAS is able to successfully direct widening of the airway cross-sectional area in an antero-posterior fashion. This exciting finding potentially allows for expansion of current indications, thus opening treatment to a wider patient population.⁹ Still, UAS remains highly studied in a relatively uniform patient population with data in more diverse subsets requiring further directed attention to expand and better define optimal patient populations for treatment.

From the perspective of improving patient adaptation and tolerance in UAS, a well-established concept in the CPAP literature can be applied, as explained by the Starling resistor model. The starling resistor is comprised of two rigid tubes connected by a collapsible segment in between. In parallel, the pharynx is a collapsible muscular tube connected on either end by the nose/nasal cavity and the trachea – both of which are bony/cartilaginous, noncollapsible structures. As has been shown in the use of CPAP, the same pressure required to maintain stability of the collapsible muscular pharynx via nasal breathing may lead to pharyngeal collapse when applied orally.¹⁰ This concept has also been directed towards UAS with our clinical experience demonstrating that oro or oronasal breathers tend to require a higher amplitude to maintain airway patency versus nasal breathers. This is an important area for future-directed study as medically/surgically improving nasal breathing in UAS subjects may subsequently lower amplitude requirements and improve patient tolerance.

Future direction to allow for improvement in the technology for application in a broader populational segment, external or alternative device powering mechanisms, along with MRI Compatibility and reducing the number of required external incisions will continue to broaden the patient selection criteria. As we move from a “stimulation” to a precision-tailored “stimulation and titration” approach, the mid to long term data supporting UAS remains very promising with 5-year follow up demonstrating sustained polysomnographic and subjective reported outcomes in well selected patients.
 

Dr. Awad is Assistant Professor – Department of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, and Chief – Division of Sleep Surgery; Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Capasso is Associate Professor – Department of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, and Chief – Division of Sleep Surgery; Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, California.

References

1. Schwartz AR et al. Electrical stimulation of the lingual musculature in obstructive sleep apnea. J Appl Physiol. 1996;81(2):643-52. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1996.81.2.643.

2. Ong AA et al. Efficacy of upper airway stimulation on collapse patterns observed during drug-induced sedation endoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154(5):970-7. doi: 10.1177/0194599816636835.

3. Woodson BT et al. Three-year outcomes of cranial nerve stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea: The STAR trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154(1):181-8. doi: 10.1177/0194599815616618.

4. Heiser C et al. Outcomes of upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea in a multicenter german postmarket study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(2):378-84. doi: 10.1177/0194599816683378.

5. Gillespie MB et al. Upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea: Patient-reported outcomes after 48 months of follow-up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(4):765-71. doi: 10.1177/0194599817691491.

6. Pietzsch JB et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of upper airway stimulation for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: A model-based projection based on the star trial. Sleep. 2015;38(5):735-44. doi: 10.5665/sleep.4666.

7. Oliven A et al. Improved upper airway patency elicited by electrical stimulation of the hypoglossus nerves. Respiration. 1996;63(4):213-16. doi: 10.1159/000196547.

8. Strollo PJ et al. Upper-airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(2):139-49. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1308659.

9. Liu YC et al. Palatopharyngoplasty resolves concentric collapse in patients ineligible for upper airway stimulation. Laryngoscope. Forthcoming.

10. De Andrade RGS et al. Impact of the type of mask on the effectiveness of and adherence to continuous positive airway pressure treatment for obstructive sleep apnea. J Bras Pneumol. 2014;40(6):658-68. doi: 10.1590/S1806-37132014000600010

Clinical significance

Continuous positive airway pressure remains the gold standard and first-line treatment for moderate to severe OSA. When CPAP and other medical therapies fail or are poorly adopted, surgical solutions - either standalone or in unison - can be directed to target precision therapy.

The newest of these techniques is neuromodulation of the lingual musculature, particularly by way of selective stimulation of the hypoglossal nerve, which first demonstrated success in human clinical trials in 1996.¹ Upper airway stimulation (UAS) was formally FDA-approved in 2014 (Inspire Medical Systems, Inc). UAS is designed to eliminate clinically significant OSA through stimulation of the anteriorly directed branches of the hypoglossal nerve, increasing the posterior airway space in a multilevel fashion.² Since this time, over 7,500 patients have been treated with Inspire in nine countries (United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, and Finland). Prospective, international multicenter trials have demonstrated 68% to 96% clinical efficacy in well selected individuals. This is defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in the apnea hypopnea index (AHI) to an overall AHI of ≤ 20/hour.^3,4 Additionally, post-UAS analysis demonstrates subjective reduction in daytime sleepiness as reported by Epworth sleepiness scores, with improvements in sleep-related quality of life. Further, UAS reduces socially disruptive snoring with 85% of bedpartners reporting soft to no snoring at 48-month follow-up.⁵ The procedure has also demonstrated long-term cost benefit in the US health-care system.⁶
 

Background and pathophysiology

Oliven and colleagues⁷ first observed the critical finding that selective intra-muscular stimulation of the genioglossus muscle lowered airway critical closing pressure (PCrit), thereby stabilizing the pharyngeal airway. Conversely, activation of the “retrusor” musculature, namely the hyoglossus and styloglossus muscles, increased Pcrit, increasing collapsibility of the pharyngeal airway.

Therapeutic implantation requires three incisions directed to the neck, chest, and right rib space (between the 4th to 6th intercostal spaces), with an operative time of 90 minutes or less in experienced hands. The majority of patients are discharged on the day of the procedure. Morbidity remains low with minimal pain reported during recovery. The most common complication is that of temporary tongue weakness, which typically resolves within 2 to 3 weeks. While very infrequent, patients should be counseled on the risk of postoperative hematoma, which can precipitate infection and subsequent explant of the device. Average recovery time spans between 3 and 7 days with activation of the device 4 weeks after surgical implantation to allow for appropriate tissue healing and reduce the risk of dislodgement of the implanted components. In contrast to other surgical treatment options, UAS is also reversible with no underlying alteration to existing pharyngeal anatomy apart from external incisions created during the procedure.
 

Stimulation to titration

As the need for a multidisciplinary approach to salvage of patients failing first-line therapy for OSA continues to grow, UAS with its multilevel impact continues to be of key interest. In similar fashion to established medical therapies such as PAP and oral appliance therapy (OAT), close observation between sleep medicine specialists and the implanting surgeon during the adaptation period with attention paid to titration parameters such as stimulation duration, pulse width, amplitude, and polarity, allow optimization of response outcome.

The stimulation electrode, which is designed in the form of a cuff to envelope the anterior (protrusor) branches of the hypoglossal nerve receives electrical stimulation from the implanted pulse generator, implanted above the pectoralis muscle of the chest wall. This design allows for collaborative awake and overnight titration of the device as directed by a sleep medicine physician. Attention is paid not only to the voltage “strength” administered with each pulse but also the degree of synchronization between respiration and stimulation, as well as pattern of pulse administration. Our experience remains that true success and adaptation to therapy requires not just meticulous surgical technique but a diligent approach to postoperative therapeutic titration to achieve a comfortable, yet effective, voltage for maintaining airway patency. Thus, akin to initiation of CPAP, UAS requires regular follow-up and device fine-tuning with patient comfort taken into consideration to achieve optimal results, and patient expectation should be aligned with this process.
 

Current indications

Success in UAS relies heavily on appropriate presurgical evaluation and clinical phenotyping. The following surgical indications have been demonstrated in the Stimulation Therapy for Apnea Reduction (STAR) trial and subsequent 3-year clinical follow-up: AHI between 15 and 80 events/hour (with ≤ 25% central apneas) and a BMI ≤ 32.⁸

As OSA often results from multi-level airway collapse, UAS targets an increase not only in the diameter of the retropalatal/oropharyngeal airway space but also the antero-posterior hypopharyngeal airway. Original criteria for implantation excluded patients with a pattern of complete circumferential collapse (CCC) noted on dynamic airway evaluation during pre-implant drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE). DISE aims to precisely target dynamic airway collapse patterns during simulated (propofol or midazolom induced) sleep.
 

Future directions

The effects of UAS are dependent on upper-airway cross-sectional area, particularly diameter. In patients who demonstrate CCC, the anteroposterior direction of activation derived from the UAS stimulus is unable to overcome CCC. In a recent prospective study, our group demonstrated that CCC can be converted to an airway collapse pattern compatible with UAS implantation, using a modified palatopharyngoplasty prior to UAS implantation. By stabilizing the lateral walls of the oropharyngeal airway with pre-implant palatal surgery, UAS is able to successfully direct widening of the airway cross-sectional area in an antero-posterior fashion. This exciting finding potentially allows for expansion of current indications, thus opening treatment to a wider patient population.⁹ Still, UAS remains highly studied in a relatively uniform patient population with data in more diverse subsets requiring further directed attention to expand and better define optimal patient populations for treatment.

From the perspective of improving patient adaptation and tolerance in UAS, a well-established concept in the CPAP literature can be applied, as explained by the Starling resistor model. The starling resistor is comprised of two rigid tubes connected by a collapsible segment in between. In parallel, the pharynx is a collapsible muscular tube connected on either end by the nose/nasal cavity and the trachea – both of which are bony/cartilaginous, noncollapsible structures. As has been shown in the use of CPAP, the same pressure required to maintain stability of the collapsible muscular pharynx via nasal breathing may lead to pharyngeal collapse when applied orally.¹⁰ This concept has also been directed towards UAS with our clinical experience demonstrating that oro or oronasal breathers tend to require a higher amplitude to maintain airway patency versus nasal breathers. This is an important area for future-directed study as medically/surgically improving nasal breathing in UAS subjects may subsequently lower amplitude requirements and improve patient tolerance.

Future direction to allow for improvement in the technology for application in a broader populational segment, external or alternative device powering mechanisms, along with MRI Compatibility and reducing the number of required external incisions will continue to broaden the patient selection criteria. As we move from a “stimulation” to a precision-tailored “stimulation and titration” approach, the mid to long term data supporting UAS remains very promising with 5-year follow up demonstrating sustained polysomnographic and subjective reported outcomes in well selected patients.
 

Dr. Awad is Assistant Professor – Department of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, and Chief – Division of Sleep Surgery; Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Capasso is Associate Professor – Department of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, and Chief – Division of Sleep Surgery; Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, California.

References

1. Schwartz AR et al. Electrical stimulation of the lingual musculature in obstructive sleep apnea. J Appl Physiol. 1996;81(2):643-52. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1996.81.2.643.

2. Ong AA et al. Efficacy of upper airway stimulation on collapse patterns observed during drug-induced sedation endoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154(5):970-7. doi: 10.1177/0194599816636835.

3. Woodson BT et al. Three-year outcomes of cranial nerve stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea: The STAR trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154(1):181-8. doi: 10.1177/0194599815616618.

4. Heiser C et al. Outcomes of upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea in a multicenter german postmarket study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(2):378-84. doi: 10.1177/0194599816683378.

5. Gillespie MB et al. Upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea: Patient-reported outcomes after 48 months of follow-up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(4):765-71. doi: 10.1177/0194599817691491.

6. Pietzsch JB et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of upper airway stimulation for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: A model-based projection based on the star trial. Sleep. 2015;38(5):735-44. doi: 10.5665/sleep.4666.

7. Oliven A et al. Improved upper airway patency elicited by electrical stimulation of the hypoglossus nerves. Respiration. 1996;63(4):213-16. doi: 10.1159/000196547.

8. Strollo PJ et al. Upper-airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(2):139-49. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1308659.

9. Liu YC et al. Palatopharyngoplasty resolves concentric collapse in patients ineligible for upper airway stimulation. Laryngoscope. Forthcoming.

10. De Andrade RGS et al. Impact of the type of mask on the effectiveness of and adherence to continuous positive airway pressure treatment for obstructive sleep apnea. J Bras Pneumol. 2014;40(6):658-68. doi: 10.1590/S1806-37132014000600010

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Nine infants younger than 1 year of age were infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 and hospitalized in China between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020, based on data from the Chinese central government and local health departments.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“As of February 6, 2020, China reported 31,211 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 637 fatalities,” wrote Min Wei, MD, of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues. However, “few infections in children have been reported.”

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators reviewed data from nine infants aged 28 days to 1 year who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020. The ages of the infants ranged from 1 month to 11 months, and seven were female. The patients included two children from Beijing, two from Hainan, and one each from the areas of Guangdong, Anhui, Shanghai, Zhejiang, and Guizhou.

All infected infants had at least one infected family member, and the infants’ infections occurred after the family members’ infections; seven infants lived in Wuhan or had family members who had visited Wuhan.

One of the infants had no symptoms but tested positive for the 2019 novel coronavirus, and two others had a diagnosis but missing information on any symptoms. Fever occurred in four patients, and mild upper respiratory tract symptoms occurred in two patients.

None of the infants died, and none reported severe complications or the need for intensive care or mechanical ventilation, the investigators said. The fact that most of the infants were female might suggest that they are more susceptible to the virus than males, although overall COVID-19 viral infections have been more common in adult men, especially those with chronic comorbidities, Dr. Wei and associates noted.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of symptom data for some patients, the researchers said. However, the results confirm that the COVID-19 virus is transmissible to infants younger than 1 year, and adult caregivers should exercise protective measures including wearing masks, washing hands before contact with infants, and routinely sterilizing toys and tableware, they emphasized.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Wei M et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 14. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2131.

Nine infants younger than 1 year of age were infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 and hospitalized in China between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020, based on data from the Chinese central government and local health departments.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“As of February 6, 2020, China reported 31,211 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 637 fatalities,” wrote Min Wei, MD, of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues. However, “few infections in children have been reported.”

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators reviewed data from nine infants aged 28 days to 1 year who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020. The ages of the infants ranged from 1 month to 11 months, and seven were female. The patients included two children from Beijing, two from Hainan, and one each from the areas of Guangdong, Anhui, Shanghai, Zhejiang, and Guizhou.

All infected infants had at least one infected family member, and the infants’ infections occurred after the family members’ infections; seven infants lived in Wuhan or had family members who had visited Wuhan.

One of the infants had no symptoms but tested positive for the 2019 novel coronavirus, and two others had a diagnosis but missing information on any symptoms. Fever occurred in four patients, and mild upper respiratory tract symptoms occurred in two patients.

None of the infants died, and none reported severe complications or the need for intensive care or mechanical ventilation, the investigators said. The fact that most of the infants were female might suggest that they are more susceptible to the virus than males, although overall COVID-19 viral infections have been more common in adult men, especially those with chronic comorbidities, Dr. Wei and associates noted.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of symptom data for some patients, the researchers said. However, the results confirm that the COVID-19 virus is transmissible to infants younger than 1 year, and adult caregivers should exercise protective measures including wearing masks, washing hands before contact with infants, and routinely sterilizing toys and tableware, they emphasized.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Wei M et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 14. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2131.

Nine infants younger than 1 year of age were infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 and hospitalized in China between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020, based on data from the Chinese central government and local health departments.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“As of February 6, 2020, China reported 31,211 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 637 fatalities,” wrote Min Wei, MD, of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues. However, “few infections in children have been reported.”

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators reviewed data from nine infants aged 28 days to 1 year who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020. The ages of the infants ranged from 1 month to 11 months, and seven were female. The patients included two children from Beijing, two from Hainan, and one each from the areas of Guangdong, Anhui, Shanghai, Zhejiang, and Guizhou.

All infected infants had at least one infected family member, and the infants’ infections occurred after the family members’ infections; seven infants lived in Wuhan or had family members who had visited Wuhan.

One of the infants had no symptoms but tested positive for the 2019 novel coronavirus, and two others had a diagnosis but missing information on any symptoms. Fever occurred in four patients, and mild upper respiratory tract symptoms occurred in two patients.

None of the infants died, and none reported severe complications or the need for intensive care or mechanical ventilation, the investigators said. The fact that most of the infants were female might suggest that they are more susceptible to the virus than males, although overall COVID-19 viral infections have been more common in adult men, especially those with chronic comorbidities, Dr. Wei and associates noted.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of symptom data for some patients, the researchers said. However, the results confirm that the COVID-19 virus is transmissible to infants younger than 1 year, and adult caregivers should exercise protective measures including wearing masks, washing hands before contact with infants, and routinely sterilizing toys and tableware, they emphasized.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Wei M et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 14. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2131.

The first quarterly meeting of your CHEST Board of Regents for the 2019-2020 CHEST year occurred from January 30 to February 1. We were welcomed to Coronado, California, by CHEST's new President Stephanie M. Levine, MD, FCCP, who began by reviewing the success of the CHEST 2019 Annual Meeting. The meeting had both the highest attendance of medical professionals and the highest total attendance in CHEST history, as well as CHEST's largest Fellow-in-Training attendance. There was also a significant increase in the number of international colleagues who attended the meeting. Dr. Levine next reported on upcoming CHEST activities including six live-learning courses scheduled to occur before May, the CHEST Congress in collaboration with the Italian delegation in Bologna, Italy in June, ongoing planning for CHEST 2020, the next volume of SEEK Critical Care and two additional cough guidelines. 
 

The first quarterly meeting of your CHEST Board of Regents for the 2019-2020 CHEST year occurred from January 30 to February 1. We were welcomed to Coronado, California, by CHEST's new President Stephanie M. Levine, MD, FCCP, who began by reviewing the success of the CHEST 2019 Annual Meeting. The meeting had both the highest attendance of medical professionals and the highest total attendance in CHEST history, as well as CHEST's largest Fellow-in-Training attendance. There was also a significant increase in the number of international colleagues who attended the meeting. Dr. Levine next reported on upcoming CHEST activities including six live-learning courses scheduled to occur before May, the CHEST Congress in collaboration with the Italian delegation in Bologna, Italy in June, ongoing planning for CHEST 2020, the next volume of SEEK Critical Care and two additional cough guidelines. 
 

The first quarterly meeting of your CHEST Board of Regents for the 2019-2020 CHEST year occurred from January 30 to February 1. We were welcomed to Coronado, California, by CHEST's new President Stephanie M. Levine, MD, FCCP, who began by reviewing the success of the CHEST 2019 Annual Meeting. The meeting had both the highest attendance of medical professionals and the highest total attendance in CHEST history, as well as CHEST's largest Fellow-in-Training attendance. There was also a significant increase in the number of international colleagues who attended the meeting. Dr. Levine next reported on upcoming CHEST activities including six live-learning courses scheduled to occur before May, the CHEST Congress in collaboration with the Italian delegation in Bologna, Italy in June, ongoing planning for CHEST 2020, the next volume of SEEK Critical Care and two additional cough guidelines. 
 

Only 26% of pulmonologists report that they are happy at work, with about twice as many happy outside of work, according to Medscape’s Pulmonologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020. Dermatologists are the happiest at work, at 41%, and neurologists are the least happy, at 18%.

According to the report, which surveyed more than 15,000 physicians from various specialties, 29% of pulmonologists report feeling burned out, with 5% reporting feeling depressed and 12% both depressed and burned out. An overabundance of bureaucratic tasks is the lead contributor to burnout (52%), according to pulmonologists, followed by lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (38%) and spending too many hours at work (35%).

Pulmonologists report that exercise is the biggest way they cope with burnout (47%), compared with neurologists, for example, who ranked it third at 40%. Other ways they deal with burnout include isolating themselves from others (43%) and playing or listening to music (38%).

Among depressed or burned-out pulmonologists, 70% reported not planning to seek professional help or seeking it in the past, while 12% reported currently seeking professional help. Furthermore, almost half of pulmonologists (48%) say they’re unlikely to participate in workplace programs.

When asked for reasons they wouldn’t seek professional help, 60% said they deal with it without professional help and 49% didn’t think their symptoms were severe enough, while 31% were simply too busy.

The slideshow of the full report is available on Medscape.com.

[email protected]

Only 26% of pulmonologists report that they are happy at work, with about twice as many happy outside of work, according to Medscape’s Pulmonologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020. Dermatologists are the happiest at work, at 41%, and neurologists are the least happy, at 18%.

According to the report, which surveyed more than 15,000 physicians from various specialties, 29% of pulmonologists report feeling burned out, with 5% reporting feeling depressed and 12% both depressed and burned out. An overabundance of bureaucratic tasks is the lead contributor to burnout (52%), according to pulmonologists, followed by lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (38%) and spending too many hours at work (35%).

Pulmonologists report that exercise is the biggest way they cope with burnout (47%), compared with neurologists, for example, who ranked it third at 40%. Other ways they deal with burnout include isolating themselves from others (43%) and playing or listening to music (38%).

Among depressed or burned-out pulmonologists, 70% reported not planning to seek professional help or seeking it in the past, while 12% reported currently seeking professional help. Furthermore, almost half of pulmonologists (48%) say they’re unlikely to participate in workplace programs.

When asked for reasons they wouldn’t seek professional help, 60% said they deal with it without professional help and 49% didn’t think their symptoms were severe enough, while 31% were simply too busy.

The slideshow of the full report is available on Medscape.com.

[email protected]

Only 26% of pulmonologists report that they are happy at work, with about twice as many happy outside of work, according to Medscape’s Pulmonologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020. Dermatologists are the happiest at work, at 41%, and neurologists are the least happy, at 18%.

According to the report, which surveyed more than 15,000 physicians from various specialties, 29% of pulmonologists report feeling burned out, with 5% reporting feeling depressed and 12% both depressed and burned out. An overabundance of bureaucratic tasks is the lead contributor to burnout (52%), according to pulmonologists, followed by lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (38%) and spending too many hours at work (35%).

Pulmonologists report that exercise is the biggest way they cope with burnout (47%), compared with neurologists, for example, who ranked it third at 40%. Other ways they deal with burnout include isolating themselves from others (43%) and playing or listening to music (38%).

Among depressed or burned-out pulmonologists, 70% reported not planning to seek professional help or seeking it in the past, while 12% reported currently seeking professional help. Furthermore, almost half of pulmonologists (48%) say they’re unlikely to participate in workplace programs.

When asked for reasons they wouldn’t seek professional help, 60% said they deal with it without professional help and 49% didn’t think their symptoms were severe enough, while 31% were simply too busy.

The slideshow of the full report is available on Medscape.com.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – While the impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak on hospitals outside of China remains to be determined, there are several practical points critical care professionals need to know to be prepared in the face of this dynamic and rapidly evolving outbreak, speakers said at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

“Priorities for us in our hospitals are early detection, infection prevention, staff safety, and obviously, taking care of sick people,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, of the Naval Medical Center San Diego in a special session on the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak.*

Approximately 72,000 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had been reported as of Feb. 17, 2020, the day of Dr. Maves’ talk, according to statistics from Johns Hopkins Center for Science and Engineering in Baltimore. A total of 1,775 deaths had been recorded, nearly all of which were in Hubei Province, the central point of the outbreak. In the United States, the number of cases stood at 15, with no deaths reported.

While the dynamics of the 2019 novel coronavirus are still being learned, the estimated range of spread for droplet transmission is 2 meters, according to Dr. Maves. The duration of environmental persistence is not yet known, but he said that other coronaviruses persist in low-humidity conditions for up to 4 days.

The number of secondary cases that arise from a primary infection, or R0, is estimated to be between 1.5 and 3, though it can change as exposure evolves; by comparison, the R0 for H1N1 influenza has been reported as 1.5, while measles is 12-18, indicating that it is “very contagious,” said Dr. Maves. Severe acute respiratory syndrome had an initial R0 of about 3.5, which he said declined rapidly to 0.7 as environmental and policy controls were put into place.

Critical care professionals need to know how to identify patients at risk of having COVID-19 and determine whether they need further work-up, according to Dr. Maves, who highlighted recent criteria released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highest-risk category, he said, are individuals exposed to a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus case, which along with fever or signs and symptoms of a lower respiratory illness would be sufficient to classify them as a “person of interest” requiring further evaluation for disease. A history of travel from Hubei Province plus fever and signs/symptoms of lower respiratory illness would also meet criteria for evaluation, according to the CDC, while travel to mainland China would also meet the threshold, if those symptoms required hospitalization.

The CDC also published a step-wise flowchart to evaluate patients who may have been exposed to the 2019 novel coronavirus. According to that flowchart, if an individual has traveled to China or had close contact with someone infected with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus within 14 days of symptoms, and that individual has fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illness such as cough or shortness of breath, then providers should isolate that individual and assess clinical status, in addition to contacting the local health department.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Laura E. Evans, MD, MS, FCCM, of New York University, said she might recommend providers “flip the script” on that CDC algorithm when it comes to identifying patients who may have been exposed.

“I think perhaps what we should be doing at sites of entry is not talking about travel as the first question, but rather fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illnesses as the first question, and use that as the opportunity to implement risk mitigation at that stage,” Dr. Evans said in a presentation on preparing for COVID-19.

Even with “substantial uncertainty” about the potential impact of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, a significant influx of seriously ill patients would put strain the U.S. health care delivery system, she added.

“None of us have tons of extra capacity in our emergency departments, inpatient units, or ICUs, and I think we need to be prepared for that,” she added. “We need to know what our process is for ‘identify, isolate, and inform,’ and we need to be testing that now.”

Dr. Maves and Dr. Evans both reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Maves indicated that the views expressed in his presentation did not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

*Correction, 2/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the naval center.

ORLANDO – While the impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak on hospitals outside of China remains to be determined, there are several practical points critical care professionals need to know to be prepared in the face of this dynamic and rapidly evolving outbreak, speakers said at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

“Priorities for us in our hospitals are early detection, infection prevention, staff safety, and obviously, taking care of sick people,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, of the Naval Medical Center San Diego in a special session on the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak.*

Approximately 72,000 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had been reported as of Feb. 17, 2020, the day of Dr. Maves’ talk, according to statistics from Johns Hopkins Center for Science and Engineering in Baltimore. A total of 1,775 deaths had been recorded, nearly all of which were in Hubei Province, the central point of the outbreak. In the United States, the number of cases stood at 15, with no deaths reported.

While the dynamics of the 2019 novel coronavirus are still being learned, the estimated range of spread for droplet transmission is 2 meters, according to Dr. Maves. The duration of environmental persistence is not yet known, but he said that other coronaviruses persist in low-humidity conditions for up to 4 days.

The number of secondary cases that arise from a primary infection, or R0, is estimated to be between 1.5 and 3, though it can change as exposure evolves; by comparison, the R0 for H1N1 influenza has been reported as 1.5, while measles is 12-18, indicating that it is “very contagious,” said Dr. Maves. Severe acute respiratory syndrome had an initial R0 of about 3.5, which he said declined rapidly to 0.7 as environmental and policy controls were put into place.

Critical care professionals need to know how to identify patients at risk of having COVID-19 and determine whether they need further work-up, according to Dr. Maves, who highlighted recent criteria released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highest-risk category, he said, are individuals exposed to a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus case, which along with fever or signs and symptoms of a lower respiratory illness would be sufficient to classify them as a “person of interest” requiring further evaluation for disease. A history of travel from Hubei Province plus fever and signs/symptoms of lower respiratory illness would also meet criteria for evaluation, according to the CDC, while travel to mainland China would also meet the threshold, if those symptoms required hospitalization.

The CDC also published a step-wise flowchart to evaluate patients who may have been exposed to the 2019 novel coronavirus. According to that flowchart, if an individual has traveled to China or had close contact with someone infected with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus within 14 days of symptoms, and that individual has fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illness such as cough or shortness of breath, then providers should isolate that individual and assess clinical status, in addition to contacting the local health department.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Laura E. Evans, MD, MS, FCCM, of New York University, said she might recommend providers “flip the script” on that CDC algorithm when it comes to identifying patients who may have been exposed.

“I think perhaps what we should be doing at sites of entry is not talking about travel as the first question, but rather fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illnesses as the first question, and use that as the opportunity to implement risk mitigation at that stage,” Dr. Evans said in a presentation on preparing for COVID-19.

Even with “substantial uncertainty” about the potential impact of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, a significant influx of seriously ill patients would put strain the U.S. health care delivery system, she added.

“None of us have tons of extra capacity in our emergency departments, inpatient units, or ICUs, and I think we need to be prepared for that,” she added. “We need to know what our process is for ‘identify, isolate, and inform,’ and we need to be testing that now.”

Dr. Maves and Dr. Evans both reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Maves indicated that the views expressed in his presentation did not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

*Correction, 2/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the naval center.

ORLANDO – While the impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak on hospitals outside of China remains to be determined, there are several practical points critical care professionals need to know to be prepared in the face of this dynamic and rapidly evolving outbreak, speakers said at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

“Priorities for us in our hospitals are early detection, infection prevention, staff safety, and obviously, taking care of sick people,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, of the Naval Medical Center San Diego in a special session on the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak.*

Approximately 72,000 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had been reported as of Feb. 17, 2020, the day of Dr. Maves’ talk, according to statistics from Johns Hopkins Center for Science and Engineering in Baltimore. A total of 1,775 deaths had been recorded, nearly all of which were in Hubei Province, the central point of the outbreak. In the United States, the number of cases stood at 15, with no deaths reported.

While the dynamics of the 2019 novel coronavirus are still being learned, the estimated range of spread for droplet transmission is 2 meters, according to Dr. Maves. The duration of environmental persistence is not yet known, but he said that other coronaviruses persist in low-humidity conditions for up to 4 days.

The number of secondary cases that arise from a primary infection, or R0, is estimated to be between 1.5 and 3, though it can change as exposure evolves; by comparison, the R0 for H1N1 influenza has been reported as 1.5, while measles is 12-18, indicating that it is “very contagious,” said Dr. Maves. Severe acute respiratory syndrome had an initial R0 of about 3.5, which he said declined rapidly to 0.7 as environmental and policy controls were put into place.

Critical care professionals need to know how to identify patients at risk of having COVID-19 and determine whether they need further work-up, according to Dr. Maves, who highlighted recent criteria released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highest-risk category, he said, are individuals exposed to a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus case, which along with fever or signs and symptoms of a lower respiratory illness would be sufficient to classify them as a “person of interest” requiring further evaluation for disease. A history of travel from Hubei Province plus fever and signs/symptoms of lower respiratory illness would also meet criteria for evaluation, according to the CDC, while travel to mainland China would also meet the threshold, if those symptoms required hospitalization.

The CDC also published a step-wise flowchart to evaluate patients who may have been exposed to the 2019 novel coronavirus. According to that flowchart, if an individual has traveled to China or had close contact with someone infected with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus within 14 days of symptoms, and that individual has fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illness such as cough or shortness of breath, then providers should isolate that individual and assess clinical status, in addition to contacting the local health department.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Laura E. Evans, MD, MS, FCCM, of New York University, said she might recommend providers “flip the script” on that CDC algorithm when it comes to identifying patients who may have been exposed.

“I think perhaps what we should be doing at sites of entry is not talking about travel as the first question, but rather fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illnesses as the first question, and use that as the opportunity to implement risk mitigation at that stage,” Dr. Evans said in a presentation on preparing for COVID-19.

Even with “substantial uncertainty” about the potential impact of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, a significant influx of seriously ill patients would put strain the U.S. health care delivery system, she added.

“None of us have tons of extra capacity in our emergency departments, inpatient units, or ICUs, and I think we need to be prepared for that,” she added. “We need to know what our process is for ‘identify, isolate, and inform,’ and we need to be testing that now.”

Dr. Maves and Dr. Evans both reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Maves indicated that the views expressed in his presentation did not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

*Correction, 2/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the naval center.

Influenza activity continues to increase, but it has slowed down a bit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest report shows that 6.8% of outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness during the week ending Feb. 8. That’s up from the previous week’s 6.6%, but that rise of 0.2 percentage points is smaller than the 0.6-point rises that occurred each of the 2 weeks before, and that could mean that activity is slowing.

That slowing, however, is not noticeable from this week’s map, which puts 41 states (there were 35 last week) and Puerto Rico in the red at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale and another three states in the “high” range with levels of 8 or 9, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

That leaves Nevada and Oregon at level 7; Alaska, Florida, and the District of Columbia at level 5; Idaho at level 3, and Delaware with insufficient data (it was at level 5 last week), the CDC said.

The 2019-2020 season’s high activity, fortunately, has not translated into high severity, as overall hospitalization and mortality rates continue to remain at fairly typical levels. Hospitalization rates are elevated among children and young adults, however, and pediatric deaths are now up to 92, the CDC said, which is high for this point in the season.

[email protected]

Influenza activity continues to increase, but it has slowed down a bit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest report shows that 6.8% of outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness during the week ending Feb. 8. That’s up from the previous week’s 6.6%, but that rise of 0.2 percentage points is smaller than the 0.6-point rises that occurred each of the 2 weeks before, and that could mean that activity is slowing.

That slowing, however, is not noticeable from this week’s map, which puts 41 states (there were 35 last week) and Puerto Rico in the red at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale and another three states in the “high” range with levels of 8 or 9, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

That leaves Nevada and Oregon at level 7; Alaska, Florida, and the District of Columbia at level 5; Idaho at level 3, and Delaware with insufficient data (it was at level 5 last week), the CDC said.

The 2019-2020 season’s high activity, fortunately, has not translated into high severity, as overall hospitalization and mortality rates continue to remain at fairly typical levels. Hospitalization rates are elevated among children and young adults, however, and pediatric deaths are now up to 92, the CDC said, which is high for this point in the season.

[email protected]

Influenza activity continues to increase, but it has slowed down a bit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest report shows that 6.8% of outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness during the week ending Feb. 8. That’s up from the previous week’s 6.6%, but that rise of 0.2 percentage points is smaller than the 0.6-point rises that occurred each of the 2 weeks before, and that could mean that activity is slowing.

That slowing, however, is not noticeable from this week’s map, which puts 41 states (there were 35 last week) and Puerto Rico in the red at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale and another three states in the “high” range with levels of 8 or 9, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

That leaves Nevada and Oregon at level 7; Alaska, Florida, and the District of Columbia at level 5; Idaho at level 3, and Delaware with insufficient data (it was at level 5 last week), the CDC said.

The 2019-2020 season’s high activity, fortunately, has not translated into high severity, as overall hospitalization and mortality rates continue to remain at fairly typical levels. Hospitalization rates are elevated among children and young adults, however, and pediatric deaths are now up to 92, the CDC said, which is high for this point in the season.

[email protected]